Activation of Operational Thinking During Arithmetic Practice Hinders Learning And Transfer

Dana L. Chesney, Nicole M. McNeil
{"title":"Activation of Operational Thinking During Arithmetic Practice Hinders Learning And Transfer","authors":"Dana L. Chesney, Nicole M. McNeil","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many children in the U.S. initially come to understand the equal sign operationally, as a symbol meaning “add up the numbers” rather than relationally, as an indication that the two sides of an equation share a common value. According to a change-resistance account (McNeil & Alibali, 2005), children's operational ways of thinking are never erased, and when activated, can interfere with mathematics learning and performance, even in educated adults. To test this theory, undergraduates practiced unfamiliar multiplication facts (e.g., 17-times table) in one of three conditions that differed in terms of how the equal sign was represented in the problems. In the operational words condition, the equal sign was replaced by operational words (e.g., \"multiplies to\"). In the relational words condition, the equal sign was replaced by relational words (e.g., \"is equivalent to\"). In the control condition, the equal sign was used in all problems. The hypothesis was that undergraduates' fluency with practiced facts and transfer problems would be hindered in the operational words condition compared to the other conditions. Results supported this hypothesis, indicating that the activation of operational thinking is indeed detrimental to learning and transfer, even in educated adults.","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Many children in the U.S. initially come to understand the equal sign operationally, as a symbol meaning “add up the numbers” rather than relationally, as an indication that the two sides of an equation share a common value. According to a change-resistance account (McNeil & Alibali, 2005), children's operational ways of thinking are never erased, and when activated, can interfere with mathematics learning and performance, even in educated adults. To test this theory, undergraduates practiced unfamiliar multiplication facts (e.g., 17-times table) in one of three conditions that differed in terms of how the equal sign was represented in the problems. In the operational words condition, the equal sign was replaced by operational words (e.g., "multiplies to"). In the relational words condition, the equal sign was replaced by relational words (e.g., "is equivalent to"). In the control condition, the equal sign was used in all problems. The hypothesis was that undergraduates' fluency with practiced facts and transfer problems would be hindered in the operational words condition compared to the other conditions. Results supported this hypothesis, indicating that the activation of operational thinking is indeed detrimental to learning and transfer, even in educated adults.
运算思维在算术练习中的激活会阻碍学习和迁移
在美国,许多孩子最初从操作上理解等号,作为一个符号,意思是“把数字加起来”,而不是关系上的,作为一个方程两边有一个共同的值的指示。根据一项“抗拒改变”的研究(McNeil & Alibali, 2005),儿童的操作思维方式永远不会被抹去,一旦被激活,就会干扰数学的学习和表现,即使是受过教育的成年人也是如此。为了验证这一理论,本科生们在三种不同的条件下练习不熟悉的乘法事实(例如,17乘表),这些条件在问题中等号的表示方式不同。在可操作的单词条件下,等号被可操作的单词(例如,“乘以”)所取代。在关系词条件下,等号被关系词取代(例如,“等于”)。在控制条件下,所有问题都使用等号。假设与其他条件相比,操作性词汇条件会阻碍大学生对实践事实和迁移问题的流畅性。结果支持这一假设,表明操作性思维的激活确实不利于学习和迁移,即使在受过教育的成年人中也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信